Rarely do Republicans agree with Democrats on anything–not even the American Jobs Act–so bipartisanship on any issue is (unfortunately) a big deal. That bipartisanship came not in the form of legislation, but in calling for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to release an extensive record of his tax returns.

While Romney has released a year and a half worth of returns, and has done the bare minimum required (as is the Romney way), the public is still not satisfied. As Jon Stewart so aptly put, Romney only released returns from “when he was running for president” in the 2012 election (meaning that he was aware that he was under special scrutiny and may have sanitized certain things for public consumption). Every day Romney refuses to release more tax returns, the political fallout increases. On yesterday’s “Good Morning America”, Ann Romney said, “We’ve given you people all you need to know”, sparking outrage over her use of “you people”, basically because she condescendingly accused her fellow Americans of being peons far below the aristocratic–and exceptional–Romneys. This “special treatment” ethic that the Romneys seem to believe they deserve is the biggest problem with the whole taxgate issue.

Unlike pundits who speculate that Romney must be hiding something terrible, I seriously doubt there is anything illegal in Mitt Romney’s tax records. The problem is that the system allows for the kind of “institutional advantages” that make possible vast economic inequality in America. Romney just reaps the benefits.

Mitt Romney has a myriad of personality flaws. There are reasons he seems out of touch and like he’s keeping others at arm’s length. He’s not forthcoming. He’s always vague. He’s not transparent. He lacks ideological convictions. In short, he’s not trustworthy. And he has money in overseas accounts. It’s not a good combination.

The unscripted Ann Romney moment served as a lightning rod because it so clearly epitomizes people’s fears about the Romneys and their relation to the majority of the country. Can you see Michelle Obama saying “you people”? The opposition would be on her SO FAST. For that matter, can you imagine Barack Obama not releasing his tax returns? (And he doesn’t even have his father’s vaunted example to live up to.) Certain Republicans, advanced by their trustworthy mouthpiece Fox News, have called for the president’s sealed documents, including high school and college transcripts. They do this to create a distraction, as if there is some false equivalency. There’s not.

Mitt and Ann, you’re not special. It’s beyond insulting that you think you are. Running for president is the great equalizer, and no one is spared the scrutiny–especially not those whose extreme wealth and secrecy have been used to insulate and separate themselves all their lives from the citizenry they are running to serve.

To say that Mitt Romney is getting a lot of flak for a comment he made yesterday concerning the “very poor” is an understatement. Liberals have seized on this statement as the latest in a series of ever-worsening gaffes, gleeful that Romney is doing all the work for them as he paints himself as the “out of touch multimillionaire” and an unelectable candidate against President Obama during a time when public opinion is against America’s Rich Uncle Pennybagses. (At least Mr. Pennybags made his money buying properties. There is no mention of laying off workers, and I’m sure even he would scoff at a 13.9% tax rate.) Even conservatives have jumped ship on this comment, embarrassed that their candidate of choice has fumbled so definitively. After being given multiple opportunities to clarify his statement, he didn’t backpedal. This is the new Mitt Romney, flip flopper characterizations be damned!

I’d like to say a bit in Mitt Romney’s defense. This may come off more as an offense against the media than a defense of Romney, but I do feel like he’s getting unfairly beaten up over this statement, as well as some others made regarding interpretations of his wealth. If we are to criticize the candidate on anything he said, it shouldn’t be the fact that he said “I don’t care about the very poor” (or “the very rich”, as he qualified) or the fact that he said “We will hear about the plight of the poor from the Democrat Party”. (The fact that the perfectly polished Romney said Democrat, not Democratic, is probably a sign that he was tired and stressed, and maybe we should realize that no candidate is actually perfect.)

To be sure, Romney’s statement was meant to emphasize his apparent commitment to the middle class in America. (This particular pandering might not actually be sincere, but for the sake of argument, let’s take Romney at his word.) This focus on the middle class is a popular stance for a presidential candidate to make, and is, in fact, the same one that President Obama has been making since 2007. While Obama’s policies—both in theory and in execution have done much more for America’s poor than any of the Republican candidates have ever pledged to do—Obama is still a mainly middle class-focused president. And why not? The middle class is how you win elections. It is politically expedient to aim your rhetoric toward those who believe in social mobility and who largely see themselves as having the desire and the ability to improve their station in life. One of the most enduring tenets of history is that revolutions are made by the middle class, not sustained by the peasantry or the lower classes. I’ve taken a lot of history classes; take that, Newt Gingrich! Basically, while the middle class is undeniably shrinking, it still consists of the majority of Americans and remains the largest voting bloc of the electorate. By all economic estimates, a thriving middle class is necessary to restore the country’s economy.

So there’s nothing wrong with speaking to the needs of the middle class. I think the issue at hand is that people are disturbed by Romney’s stated focus on the middle class seemingly at the exclusion—or to the detriment of—the “very poor”. He said that those who fall into this category have a social safety net, and if the safety net has holes in it, he will work to fix them. On its face, there is nothing wrong with this statement either. The real problem comes when one reads into this statement in context. Romney claimed that his statement was taken out of context. If you listen to all he says, and consider that the context, you are not really understanding the full scope. Republicans—Romney included—have made it their unequivocally stated goal to cut social programs for the poor and remove or tremendously weaken the social safety net, claiming that the United States government has bred an “entitlement society”. The kind of Ayn Rand, individualistic, I don’t give a shit about other people and I don’t live in a society where I’ve actually ever relied on anyone and I ignore the fact that there is undeniable historical evidence that cooperation equals prosperity, thinking is further qualified by the idea that “with the mounting debt, we can’t afford to spend this kind of money”. Translated into simple English without the spin, the Republican candidates are willing to kill poor people and doom them to suffering. Maybe that sounds like fear mongering, but it’s absolutely true.

Problem number one: Mitt Romney is disingenuous when he claims that he will fix the social safety net. Also, how about trying to help people out of poverty? Romney cares much more about his corporate donors and bigwig buddies than the poor. No one should be fooling themselves. But we knew all this before this statement, so the gasps and outrage are surprising. Suddenly everyone realizes?

Problem number two: Romney stated that 90-95% of American people are middle class. He had stated on a previous occasion that 80-90% of people are middle class. Neither of these figures is correct. This is why people get upset when Romney includes himself in these figures and when he jokes that he, too, is unemployed. Romney seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what middle class means. Taking this further, if he truly sees himself as middle class, then he has no idea how the vast majority of the country’s population lives. Those figures should have been the real focus of criticism, not the semi-tactless statements he made.

Problem number three: Liberals are hurt that Romney likened the poverty issue to a Democratic issue. While the “plight of the poor” should definitely not be a partisan issue, this is not the point. Hearing Cenk Uygur rail on about how he, as a Democrat, shouldn’t be marginalized and “this guy” (Romney) is ridiculous just makes him—and other media representatives like him—seem self absorbed and immature.

Who doesn’t love a talking point? The media has survived on them since at least last May, when the Republican candidates started taking the 2012 presidential race seriously. The problem with this is that the focus becomes things like Romney’s $10,000 bet moment, not actual analysis of any of the candidates’ policy proposals. I personally don’t think the $10,000 bet was that big of a deal. We know Romney’s rich. We know he wouldn’t actually bet. He’s said plenty of other incendiary things that actually have potential for application, things that would hurt the poor—and anyone who couldn’t afford a $10,000 bet—far more than that debate moment. I get it, though: All of these moments are heuristics used to judge a candidate’s “character”, and we should know who we’re voting for. How about we don’t hound Romney relentlessly for every slightly awkward statement he makes, and instead, hold him—as well as every other candidate—to account for their actual positions and demand concrete plans from our potential leaders? Then, feel free to tear them apart. At least that would be productive.

What an incredible miscalculation on the part of the PNAC to assume that a strong United States would be forged from preemptive military strikes, and that military might is the main component for sustained world power in the 21st century. Perhaps the PNAC was working off of the mythology that a strong military built up the United States in the 20th century; however, it was not primarily military power, but economic power, that fueled–and then cemented–the position of the United States as a world power. From overtaking Britain and Germany in manufacturing at the turn of the 20th century to the birth of the mass production industry with Ford and his ilk through World War II, the all-important Marshall Plan, Bretton Woods, and post-war developments through the Cold War and the technological miracle of the end of the century, economics has been the main component of American success. In an increasingly Internet-based world where the word “innovation” is thrown around almost as often as the pejorative “Obamacare”, it is imperative that the US remain an engine of economic growth. The financial crisis has created a climate in which depressing statistic after depressing statistic is ubiquitous and a feeling of hopelessness pervasive.

What is especially frightening is the theme among many Republicans that a supersized military and preemptive strikes against Iran are not to be questioned. According to this view, no “patriotic American” would want to risk the country’s safety and security in such a dangerous world. Never mind that this mentality is akin to a wrecking ball. Ron Paul, the sole dissenter of this view, in the remaining field of Republican presidential contenders, claims that the Russian foray into Afghanistan bankrupted the Soviet Union and helped lead to the USSR’s demise. What he fails to mention, however, is the amount of money Russia spent on excessive military technology and the unsustainable empire it built in an age when colonialism was dying out everywhere else in the world. At this time, the US could better afford to engage in an arms race with the Soviet Union.

If our country is to live up to its credo of “the shining city upon a hill”–another phrase seemingly every Republican contender has invoked since the beginning of the race–then our strategy should be to take meaningful steps to mitigate humanitarian crises around the world. We can start with Syria. Libya provided a good example of how lives can be saved when the world intervenes. The no-fly zone proved indispensable to the Libyan rebels. Now, when Syrian rebels are calling for a no-fly zone, stricter UN action, and a credible set of observers, the US should take these pleas seriously. Without Russian and Chinese support, the UN Security Council is rendered impotent. Does that mean the US should do nothing more than what it already has? No, it doesn’t.

Unfortunately, probably very little will be done in Syria or anywhere else in the next year because it’s a presidential election year. When President Obama is criticized on every aspect of his foreign policy in repeated right wing talking points (even though Obama has been “strong” on most foreign policy initiatives), it is highly unlikely that the White House will do much anywhere else. And the Congress? Congress can’t even pass the simplest of routine domestic bills.

It is disingenuous and dangerous for Republicans to talk about “living within our means”, spending cuts, not nurturing a “dependency society”, and promising things like “bringing foreign aid down to zero”, when the same people will not provide direct assistance to the citizens suffering at home and insist on growing military and all kinds of national security expenditures. The Project for a New American Century model has failed, and has helped bankrupt the United States, aiding in the depletion of one of our country’s greatest assets: our economic success. And this money is not a vague, detached concept. It is due to the hard work and cooperation of generations of Americans, the same people Republicans would like to bleed while insisting on tax cuts for the wealthiest and building up, as Romney terms it, “a military so strong that no one will think to mess with us” (or some rhetoric to that effect). This is all proudly proclaimed and echoed by others not on the stages at debates while claiming that people in genuine need of help–whether that be around the world–or in their own backyards, are not “our problem” and these people (who include the vast majority of American citizens) should take care of themselves.

The United States can adapt right now, and need not succumb to naysayers’ insistence that the golden age of America is over. At the same time, spending exorbitant amounts of money on an aggressive foreign policy and unchecked defense spending while not taking care of US citizens is not a viable–or ethical–path forward. If for no other reason, voting for a Republican for president (and, yes, that includes Ron Paul, who lives in a fantasy world where everyone takes care of the sick by collecting money at church, never mind the fact that not everyone goes to church and even fewer people are either that giving or have the means to care for their neighbors), is an irresponsible and ignorant decision. Imagine a better world.

Newt Gingrich is the latest Republican presidential candidate to beat. Aside from the fact that he’s “not Mitt Romney”, I don’t understand what about him appeals to potential voters. He’s not particularly charismatic or charming—in fact, he’s downright condescending. He doesn’t have impeccable conservative credentials. He doesn’t even have catchy soundbites.

While I’m certainly not a Newt Gingrich fan, I don’t agree with the reasons why he’s being attacked. “Personal baggage” is how pundits have put his personal transgressions as well as what are seen as his media missteps. There is plenty to disagree with Gingrich on politically (whether you’re a prospective primary voter or you’re a progressive like me who’s taken an interest in the candidates because if Obama were to lose you’d want it to be someone who is at least potentially palatable as president). If, however, the focus is to be on Gingrich’s personality flaws, I’d like to focus on issues that should be of much greater importance to voters than Gingrich’s multiple marriages, the affair he had while his previous wife had cancer, his hypocrisy during the skewering of Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, or—worst of all in the eyes of conservative pundits—Gingrich’s “Al Gore sponsored” commercial about using alternative energy to power America because of the devastating effects of climate change with none other than that she-devil Nancy Pelosi (gasp).

A quick word on the Pelosi/Gingrich commercial: Whether you personally like Nancy Pelosi or not, the reason both politicians were in the commercial was not accidental. At the time of the commercial (beginning in 2007), Pelosi was Speaker of the House. Gingrich was a former Speaker of the House. A not so subtle parallel was to be drawn. This commercial was supposed to be post-partisan. It was a step forward. Both Pelosi and Gingrich admitted that they may not agree on everything, but they agreed on renewable energy for the country they both served. How refreshing. Remember the days when members of Congress could actually agree on things and cross party lines? Yeah, I don’t really either. This commercial, however, was a glimmer of that long lost time. Now, after being dragged through the mud for appearing in a commercial with Herman Cain’s “Princess Nancy” about that liberal myth meant to bankrupt America by the hippie commies known as climate change (double gasp), Gingrich has back pedaled on his participation in the commercial and with the organization behind it.

What happened to principles? What happened to leadership? Taking allegedly unpopular positions because you know they would benefit the country and the world—as opposed to cow towing to the extremes of the party—is true leadership. This is the kind of thing I want to see, and it should be the kind of thing that Republicans want to see, as well. And since when did believing in science become a disqualifier for attaining the nation’s highest office? Jon Huntsman, who is a definite conservative on the traditional issues that matter to Republicans, has been labeled a moderate in no small part because of his open support for evolution and for his belief in anthropogenic climate change. Especially in an election where the true differences between Democrats and Republicans are supposed to be on the economic front, punishing a candidate—whether it be Huntsman or Gingrich—for supporting “Al Gore’s agenda” is ridiculous and shameful.

Newt is sleazy. He is an immense political opportunist. He is arrogant, self-serving, and snarky. In a word, he is not presidential. He wants Americans to look at his record. A standout point from said record was the way he conducted business while in the House of Representatives. Before ascending to the Speakership, he fed his popularity by giving passionate speeches to the chamber. These speeches were televised on C-Span, a method Gingrich purposely employed in an effort to use broadcast media to his advantage. These impassioned speeches seemed to defy opposition. So good was he that he captivated the esteemed room. The only problem was that he was being entirely disingenuous to both the audience and the other House members. Gingrich purposely gave long, secret, after-hours speeches to empty House chambers in the late 1980s. He did this so that his ideas would not be opposed, and he would come off seeming like some kind of invincible genius. This Karl Rove-esque trick is no longer allowed to occur in Congress. It was cheating. You can read about Gingrich’s sneaky tactic here: http://books.google.com/books?id=NmCL26aE00wC&pg=PA169&dq=%2Bgingrich+%2Bcspan+%2Bafterhours&hl=en&ei=NFTdTs3GBcf30gGV7pzSDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ

Watch Newt Gingrich in any debate and you will see how he responds to his fellow candidates. I had the special pleasure of seeing him debate Howard Dean at a George Washington University event a few months before he formally declared his candidacy. He oozes disregard and condescension. Republicans love to call Barack Obama an elitist. Newt Gingrich is the elitist archetype.

As if these aren’t turnoffs enough, Gingrich’s cozying up to Donald Trump is downright sickening. It’s shameless opportunism. Seeking out Trump’s endorsement and courting Trump on both his recent trip to Manhattan and lauding Trump’s debate makes Gingrich look desperate and low.

Gingrich’s smugness knows no bounds. His “look at me” ethic and his constant declarations of “I’m going to be the nominee” belie insecurity shrouded in arrogance.

One thing I like about Newt Gingrich is that he is the only candidate to come out publicly in support of NASA. It seemed like he would be for increasing funding to NASA, and at the most recent Republican debate in Iowa (Saturday, December 10, 2011), Gingrich responded to a Romney jab by saying that he remembered growing up during a time when children could dream about being astronauts. He declared that he was unapologetic about wanting to encourage science and math and promoting missions to the moon and Mars. He seemed stronger on this issue than Obama.

I’m not a one issue voter, though, and it’s times like these that I have to remind myself that Gingrich wants poor kids to work janitorial jobs in schools and doesn’t believe in financial aid payments for college. One can’t forget his stance on not taxing the “job creators” and his complete denigration of Palestinians (which is a whole other issue that I could spend hours writing).

Those who feel the Obama presidency has been a disappointment can all point to a specific moment or specific piece of legislation as thatdefining point that the larger than life candidate did not live up to their expectations when assuming office. These issues range from Obama’s promise to close Guantanamo Bay (still open) to his promise to fight for comprehensive climate change regulation (an issue that atonce took the back burner, and now, even talk of energy from renewable resources is all but dead after the Solyndra scandal) to Obama not coming out more strongly for gay rights. There are a myriad of other issues which Obama has compromised on. Watering down health care legislation and extending the Bush Era tax cuts, anyone? But what about pulling an entire 180, a Mitt Romney if you will? Political flip flopping is always a hot topic, but especially so in the year leading up to a national election. Obama’s signing of a bill to allow horses to be slaughtered for human consumption in the United States—a law that will allow people to eat horsemeat–is one such example. This decision by Obama (to enact legislation which is the absolute reverse of what he said in his campaign rhetoric) is my main Obama disappointment moment. Through disappointment to disappointment I slugged it out with him, an unfailing advocate for a president I believed in. I argued that compromise was necessary, that no one is perfect, that he was trying to stay above the fray and his attempts at bipartisanship were idealistic and naive, but their aim was commendable. This “quiet signing” of the horse meat bill is, however, the nadir of Obama’s presidency to me. No, I won’t take as much of a hardline stance on Obama’s ordering of the killing of Anwar Al Awlaki (the American citizen turned terrorist), but I will stand up for innocent animals who should be allowed to live in peace and not be exploited for profit and killed because of some people’s cruel desire to eat them. Yes, this is an issue of ethics.

While I am certainly an advocate for preventing the slaughter of any animal, it is not only my fellow animal rights advocates who feel that horse slaughter is particularly inhumane. Many who claim not to be vegans or vegetarians find the practice of killing horses for their meat abhorrent. Horses are intelligent, majestic, docile creatures who have been an integral part of the American landscape since before the first English colonists settled here. Horses form special bonds with humans not unlike other domesticated pets. Would you eat your dog or cat? There is no necessity to kill horses. No argument from scarcity can be made as food in the United States is abundant. For those who claim that many of today’s horses are neglected and that they are being slaughtered in other places with fewer regulations (like Canada and Mexico) today anyway, I ask why more isn’t being done to ensure the proper treatment of these horses? The answer should not be to kill them for profit. Must everything be exploited and destroyed? The answer is no. Slaughtering horses for human consumption is a cruel betrayal to these animals and enables a culture that thrives on suffering.

There have been several bills proposed in both the House and the Senate over the past few years that prevent the sale, distribution (and related actions), and slaughter for human consumption of horses and burros. The most recent bill was proposed in September 2011 and the last action taken on this bill was in October 2011. The bill can seen here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2966:

The bill that was signed by President Obama on November 18 was not a bill that explicitly stated anything about horse consumption or horse slaughter in its title. The language that lifts the ban on horse slaughter was included in a large, multi-piece spending bill The Huffington Post describes as “designed to keep the government afloat” through the end of the year. Sneaky indeed.

It is encouraging that groups from The Humane Society to passionate citizens will fight the implications of the legislation, but I still feel betrayed by Obama. It is bad enough that we are in a place where spending bills must be passed for a month at a time and that the president has not taken a harder line with obstructionist House Republicans, in particular, but this move is something I cannot overlook.

Let me just preface this post by saying I’m voting for Barack Obama for president in 2012.

But since no Democrats are running against him (and it’s early yet to know much about third party candidates), it’s more exciting to focus on the Republican contenders.

I am in love with Jon Huntsman, and it’s terribly disappointing that he isn’t getting more love from prospective voters. It’s a bad time for a Huntsman candidacy, as Jon Huntsman is several things Republicans hate: a so-called “moderate”, a former Obama employee, “elitist”, and something of a Romney lite. Huntsman might have an uphill battle if he were running for president at a different time, but it’s particularly difficult for him now when Tea Party Republicans are so avowedly anti-Obama and policy positions have shifted so far to the right. While there is certainly some reactionary response to the 2010 Midterm elections, Republican rhetoric is still strongly to the right. (Yay for alliterations.) In addition, it’s been well established that Republicans are looking for a Romney alternative, and most certainly don’t see that in Huntsman. He is a handsome Mormon moderate and business executive with a privileged upbringing. Huntsman, however, has more nuanced policy positions and stronger stances than Romney does. Perhaps best known for serving as US Ambassador to China under President Obama (somewhat surprising since his stint as Governor of Utah was longer), Huntsman has been pegged soft on China and an Obama lapdog. Nevermind that Huntsman was US Ambassador to Singapore under President George H.W. Bush as well.

Jon Huntsman uses words that I would use. I like that he uses the term “asymmetric warfare” in terms of fighting terrorist actors. He’s right. Anyone who studies this would be familiar with it, and if they aren’t, they should learn this because it’s the reality for America’s situation in the Middle East. I like that he uses the word “incendiary” when talking about Iran’s nuclear posturing and Ahmadinejad’s extreme rhetoric. (I’m sure there was no pun intended on Huntsman’s part when using the word incendiary to talk about bombs, but that would be clever.) I identify with him. And I want my president to sound educated and to know what he or she is talking about. When did not dumbing it down become a handicap?

Huntsman is personable as well. He’s funny and he smiles and it seems authentic. And his smile isn’t creepy in a Herman Cain kind of way or crazy in a Michele Bachmann kind of way. And he believes in anthropogenic climate change! He even has the balls to call the other candidates out on their rejection of science. He strikes me as determined and principled and he’s been called an optimist. Apparently, this is another dirty term. Where would we be without optimists, though, and wouldn’t one want an optimist in the White House as opposed to a pessimist?

I don’t agree with him on everything. I have significant issues with some of his policy positions. He is very conservative when it comes to abortion. He wasn’t very critical of the past summer’s debt ceiling debacle. He doesn’t believe in the EPA. He believes lowering taxes for the wealthy would help the economy.

He inspires confidence in me, however.

I believe Romney will get the Republican nomination, but I think Huntsman would make a better president. I want Obama to win, but there’s always a chance the Republican nominee will beat him. I’d much rather it be Jon Huntsman than anyone else. Romney is my second choice, but it’s unbelievable to me that at the time of my writing this post, Huntsman has 23,633 Facebook fans to Romney’s 1,183,397.